who should immediately transmit it to the I was in the highest degree entitled to the secretary of state, and that in the mean protection of the law; and if so, there time they should not quit the place where could be no doubt but the power of dispos they landed, or any certain distance that ing of it was to be considered under the should be fixed, without receiving per- same protection; both of which were viomission, or without giving security before lated by the present bill.-The second justices of the peace for their good be- ground upon which the bill proceeded was, haviour. At a time when the characters that the possession of land in France, by of persons coming into this country were any of his majesty's subjects there, might liable to suspicion, he hoped this regu- become hostile to the interests of this lation would be deemed proper, in order country. Should the learned gentleman not to ascertain of what description they have stated some specific inconvenience were, and what were their objects. The that this country had felt by any of its last clause of his bill was, to prevent the subjects having possessions in other couninsurance of vessels either coming from tries? British subjects had had from time France, or going to France. He conto time many such possessions, and no cluded with moving, "That leave be evil, that he ever heard of, had hitherto given to bring in a bill more effectually to resulted from that circumstance: he was prevent during the war, all Traitorous firmly convinced, that nothing at this moCorrespondeuce with, or Aid or Assis- ment could be more dangerous than holdtance being given to, His Majesty's Ene- ing out that idea, and that there was not mies." any thing at the present that made it appear more dangerous to have such possessions than at any former period. Indeed, he never expected to hear a proposition maintained in any part of the world, least of all in Great Britain, that we should not subscribe to loans, or engage in the funds of any country; or that those who were at war with us, were not to have their property considered as sacred. The direct contrary had hitherto been the rule; and it had been always held out, that property of every kind was secured to the use of its possessor, as well during war of any kind, as in times of the most profound peace? Something to the reverse of this had been started and proposed during the American war, respecting property held in Pennsylvania; but the minister of that day rejected with disdain a proposition so unjust and impolitic; observing, that the sacredness of the possession of property being the basis of a free state, the honour, and ultimately, the safety of the kingdom, might entirely depend upon that princi ple. This was wise, as well as honour Mr. For declared, that he could not omit even this first opportunity to express his disapprobation of a bill, the regulations of which he regarded as useless, unjust, and impolitic. If the hon. and learned gentleman meant to say, that there were doubts to be removed on the law of treason as it stood, that many points in that law were not well understood, and that the subjects of this country might, without knowing it, incur the penalties of the law; if the gentlemen of the long robe, notwithstanding their great learning, said, that still to them this law was doubtful, it ill became so unlearned an individual as himself to say, that a bill to explain that law was not necessary, But he who had never before heard of those doubts, had no reason till now to think that law obscure, and therefore could not feel the necessity of a bill to explain it. However, if he was deficient in knowledge upon that subject, he must allow, of course, that a bill might be necessary for the purpose of explaining the law, and then the question would be, whether the provisions of the bill now opened conformed to that intention. To him they appeared of a very extraordinary nature, The first part that struck his mind was, the restraint upon the purchase, by any subject of this country, of any land in France. The bills to which the hon. and learned gentleman had alluded upon that head as precedents, were not in his mind very highly deserving of imitation; for in this, and every other country calling itself free, he had always held, that property able. But this principle was totally destroyed by the spirit of the present bill, Nevertheless, if we looked at the interest of this country, independent of any other consideration, he was convinced that we should not be so rash as to stop the intercourse between this country and France with respect to the purchase of lands, or the investing of money in the funds. Had we lost all sense of the advantage to be derived from keeping that open? Was it likely that much of the money of the peo ple of this country would be laid out in the most meritorious English subject, and because he was meritorious he stood a great chance of being obnoxious to his majesty's ministers, was to be at the mercy, whim, or caprice of any creature of the crown, who had the power to say to him, without assigning a reason, "You shall not come over to this country, because I do not choose you shall come."-As to the insurance of ships belonging to France, the question did not involve any principle; for the preventing of Englishmen from paying the losses of the French was right enough; but he wished to know of what utility the prohibition would be. The truth was, that the premium was always more than equal to the risk, and the balance was in favour of the underwriter. If, for instance, out of one hundred insurances, the profits of the premium was much more than the loss at the expiration of the policy, then England would have gained, and France would have lost. Why, then, he must say, that he did not see the reason for this restraint upon trade. But, however, he had less objection to this clause than he had to many of the others, because it appeared to him to be merely foolish. He ridiculed the attorney genes ral's definition of the word correspondence, and thought that the people of this coun try needed not to be told, that, if they entered into any agreement with the enemies of the state, to perform any thing that tended to its injury, they were ame nable to the law. However, if the learned gentleman thought the people of this country were so ignorant of their duty to the state, it was kind in him to tell them what they were liable to in cases of neglect or positive offence. Mr. Fox con cluded with saying, that the whole of the bill, as opened by the learned gentleman, appeared to him entirely unnecessary, many parts of it repugnant to the common principles of justice, some of them foolish, and he believed it brought forward with no other view than to disseminate through the country false and injurious ideas of the existence of a correspondence between some persons and France, and alarms of dangers where there were no dangers at all; and therefore it should meet with his decided opposition, even in that early stage. purchases in France? Or was it not rather more probable, that many of the people of France would make purchases with us? We had always encouraged foreigners, even in time of war, to deal in our funds; and we had always held their property sa cred: and he would ask, whether encouragement afforded on both sides to deal in the funds, would operate most in favour of this country or of France; of that which had most, or that which had least credit? Was it to be supposed, that men would be so blind to their own interest, as not to perceive and avail themselves of this advantage? But these considerations would be defeated entirely by the present bill. The next provision of this measure went to declare it treason to supply the French, or any in alliance with them, with arms. If that part of the law was to be thoroughly revised, perhaps he might have something to offer to the attention of the House upon that subject; but considering all wars of late years in Europe as contests of revenue, rather than of arms, he questioned whether it would not be of advantage to this country to trade with its enemies, and perhaps to sell to them even articles of arms, whilst we had prompt payment, at our own price, for them, With respect to the prohibition of Englishmen going to France without a pass port, as described in the bill, he should pass it by, as he considered it as the least exceptionable clause. But as to the provision against Englishmen returning to their country, it was monstrous enough to make the learned gentleman himself afraid of stating it. It was giving a power to the king to banish, during the war, every British subject now in France. But, it seemed, he had the power of returning in certain cases, by giving security and what not for his good behaviour. Who was to be the judge of the amount of that security? This was to be left to a magistrate. Here again, a man was to be put under the discretion of another person, who might render his return impossible by exacting security to an amount that could not be given. If one man was to be at the discretion of another in the dearest of his rights, that of living under the government and partaking of the advantages of the constitution of his native country, he must ask, upon what principle it was, that we were daily congratulating each other, and praising our laws to foreign nations? Where was the foundation of our boasting, if an English subject, The Solicitor General said, he did not pretend to say that gentlemen on the opposite side of the House were less attached to the constitution than himself; but he could not help observing, when passport, from his majesty, was condemned: but was it not necessary, at such a time, to know who, and what they were, from whom the circumstances of the moment led us to feel such apprehension? The object of that part of the bill, was not to impute to every Englishman passing to and from Paris any charge of disaffection; but there were some characters in that capital whom it was necessary to guard against. During former wars, acts had been passed affording, against similar Mr. Martin said, that during the debates on the present war, he had done all in his power to prevent this country from falling into that calamity; but as war was now entered into, the next part of his duty appeared to him to be that of putting an end to it. This measure seemed to him to be calculated for that purpose, and therefore it should have his support. ever the subject chanced to be started, a soreness which seemed to imply a consciousness of something. He defended the proposed bill. As to the term "correspondence," it was not so well understood as the right hon. gentleman seemed to think; for many gentlemen had applied to him for an explanation of it; so that it was not the illiterate alone that misconceived its signification. The statute of Edward 3rd, he said, left the law of treason in some doubt; because the nature of treason was, in some measure, to be determined by ex-offences, the same species of provision. isting circumstances; and of consequence The measure had received the sanction of there had been continual declarations of our ancestors, and for that reason he what, in particular instances, constituted should give it his cordial assent. treason: first, with respect to the clause of the present bill, prohibiting any persons to furnish the enemy with arms, which, surely, was a treasonable act, as it was aiding the king's enemies. But, to rest the matter merely on the question of policy, if these arms were articles essential to the French, in order to carry on the war, and if this country was particularly advantageous for the purpose of supplying them, it was surely something, even in point of policy, to deprive them of this advantage. But the force of this reasoning was increased, if the situation of France was such, that it could not supply itself with these articles from any other quarter, and if by being deprived of these, she was left destitute of the means of carrying on the war. Other wars, it had been stated, were rather contests of revenue than of arms; in this war, the case was different: the French were waging war with their whole substance; and if we contended with them on the ground of revenue, they would certainly have the advantage. As to the purchase of lands, one of the causes of the calamities of the American war, was the private interest of individuals in consequence of their possessions, which induced them to take a part contrary to their sentiments. How, he asked, was France to lavish her substance? She had determined to sell her lands for the support of the war: she could not sell them to herself; and to whom could she sell them with more advantage than to persons in this country? As to the prohibition of persons to go to France, let gentlemen consider the danger of an intercourse, just now, with France, and then decide for what good purpose Englishmen could feel an inducement to resort thither. law. thither. The requisition of their not being permitted to quit France without a licence, or a On Mr. Erskine said, that when the learned gentleman threw out some expressions concerning the soreness of some persons upon the present subject, he was persuaded he did not mean to insinuate, that there were any persons within the walls of the House less desirous than himself to maintain the tranquillity and prosperity of the country: if he had entertained any such suspicion, he was sure he would have been manly enough to say so. the present occasion, he confessed that the attorney and solicitor general had greatly the advantage of him-they no doubt had examined every authority in any manner connected with that which they intended to propose; whereas he had no information upon the subject of treason except that general knowledge which grew out of the study of the law, as from the practice of it he had learned nothing; for such was the attachment of the people to the present sovereign, and such their reverence for the constitution, that during the fifteen years he had been at the bar, he had witnessed but one trial for high treason, and in that solitary instance the prisoner had been acquitted. He maintained that the bill was directly repugnant to the policy of the best and wisest of our ancestors, and contrary to the highest authorities in the law. The learned gentleman who brought in the bill professed to have taken lord Hale for his guide. He wished every man present would look without delay ject might be expounded away until it into his Pleas of the Crown, and compare was lost and destroyed altogether. the bill with its supposed model. No It was urged, that the circumstances of man was a greater enemy than lord Hale the times called for this extraordinary to those temporary acts which parliament measure. He desired to know what were itself had repeatedly declared to be dan- these circumstances which could justify gerously destructive of the venerable the lessening or endangering the freedom statute of Edward 3rd. In Edward of the country. He knew of nothing 4th's time (a circumstance which the which had happened, except that a false learned gentleman had not found it alarm had been propagated for the purconvenient to advert to), all these ob- pose of strengthening the hands of gonoxious statutes had been swept away, and vernment, and weakening the liberties of in the reign of queen Mary they had been the people; and by this artifice, ministers again swept away, with a preamble repro- were to have unbounded confidence, and bating their pernicious and impolitic every body else were to be stigmatised by principle. Thus, as often as they sprung distrust, and libelled by suspicions of treaup like weeds in the wholesome harvest son and rebellion. Now, where was the of the law, the legislature mowed them evidence to warrant all this, or any part down, and destroyed them. Why, then, of it. Had the attorney-general a single were the fundamental principles of cri- indictment against any one person now minal justice thus consecrated for ages, depending? Had he even any well-founded to be now shaken by an unnecessary and suspicion that treason any where existed? mischievous act of legislation? By the Had he any informations on the file for ancient statute of Edward 3rd, no man sedition? Not one of these! Yet could be guilty of high treason unless his the country was defamed, by being demind was proved to be traitorous; whereas scribed as in a state that required the laws this bill, the very foundation of which of treason to be amended. Had the gowas unjust suspicion of the people, de- vernment really been in danger from disclared specific acts to be traitorous, with- affection, he should not have been found out regard to the intentions specified in setting up improper forms or niceties of the original act of king Edward, with a law to protect traitors; and he believed view, it seems, to guard men against fall- that the whole body of the people would ing into treasons. For my part, said join heart and hand to beat down such Mr. Erskine, "Timeo danaos et dona mischiefs. If the country was false to itferentes." The attorney general by self, and was falling into dangerous disorthis bill gives a statutable exposition of der, there might then have been some netreasons, which he denied to be a just one, cessity for a legislative interference. Parand even if it were judges upon the new liament was undoubtedly omnipotent, text might build up new constructions as and in such a case would have a solemn duty they did upon former ones. The great besides to exert all its authority; but it value of the ancient law was simplicity ought to manifest a sound discretion in and security. The mind alone could be the exercise of it. "Nec Deus intersit, traitorous, compassing and imagining the &c."-He then proceeded to remark on death of the king; levying war against the other clauses of the bill. It was surely him, and adhering to his enemies, were all rather absurd to prohibit persons from acts of the mind evidenced by the overt purchasing lands in France, in the present acts of their accomplishment; but under distracted state of that country, whilst the present bill, if it passed into a law, a this kingdom was in a condition so highly man might be convicted of treason with prosperous, and afforded so many favouras little ceremony as if it were for pulling able opportunities for the employment of down a turnpike gate, or for some petty money. Instead of prohibiting persons offence against the excise or customs; the to deal in the French funds, ministers connexion might be supported without should rather take care that a calamitous due regard to mischievous purpose. New war might not prevent them from purchasconstructions, besides, as he had just said, ing in our own. The regulation to premight arise upon the bill when it came to vent subjects from coming from France to be expounded in the courts. Another this country, without a licence, was also attorney-general might also come with highly objectionable; many of them were some new bill upon some assumed new persons whose going abroad was unavoidnecessity, and thus the liberty of the sub-able, some for the recovery of their health, others from the derangement of their affairs with respect to such persons the regulation was oppressive, as it put every thing in the power of ministers; and it was impolitic, as it seemed calculated to disgust at the moment when we should be most solicitous to render our own country a land of freedom and delight. On the subject of insurance, he remarked, that from the high premiums demanded in war, the balance must be in favour of our insurers. He concluded with again adverting to the statute of Edward 3d, which he considered as all that was necessary, and as calculated to meet every occasion on which the crime of treason could fairly be alleged. The present bill he therefore considered as both unnecessary and dangerous. He said, show me the necessity, and I will go hand in hand with you in any act that can be brought forward. Mr. Frederick North thought it sound policy not to suffer British subjects to purchase lands in France during the present war, which was not applicable to any other war in which we had ever been engaged: this was not a war for revenue but for existence; the only means that France had of carrying it on was the sale of her lands; and if she could not find purchasers, she must give up the contest. To allow a subject of ours to purchase land in France under such circumstances, or indeed under any circumstances, would be impolitic; for in that case, the purchaser having a permanent interest in France, must have an interest in promoting her prosperity, even to the injury of England. The same applied, though perhaps not in an equal degree, to purchasers in the French funds; the transfer of stock being Easier than that of lands, the interest was less permanent it was true, but whilst continued, it had the same effect upon the proprietor. As to the insurance of ships, he thought that it ought not to be allowed at all; for as we were the only people who could insure for the' French, if we declined it, they must give up their trade, and such a step would be the ruin of their navy. With respect to the proposed regulations, as to his majesty's subjects going from this country to France, and returning from thence, they appeared to him highly proper. Mr. Curwen said, he had highly disapproved of the present war; but now that we were actually engaged in it, he was as much inclined as any man, to give every support that might be necessary for car rying it on with vigour and effect. The proposed bill, however, going to an extension of the laws relating to treason, which he thought a matter of great delicacy indeed, he was decidedly of opinion, that it was previously necessary to have laid before the House some good reasons for so strong a measure. He had heard of none such; and he should therefore oppose the present bill. Leave was given to bring in the bill. March 21. On the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, Mr. Curwen rose to express his most hearty disapprobation of a measure, which to him appeared to be unnecessary in its object, ineffectual in its means for attaining it, and oppressive and impolitic in many of its provisions. The first clause he maintained, was unnecessary, because the supplying of the king's enemies by any of his subjects with naval or military stores, came within the 4th section of the 25th Edw. 3rd. and as it was already treason by one law, it would not be necessary to declare it to be so by a new statute. The second clause for preventing any subject of his majesty from purchasing lands in France, or stock in the French funds, was in one point of view, absurd, and in another dangerous, instead of being beneficial to England. Never could it have been so preposterous to endeavour to prevent an Englishman from speculating in the purchase of French lands or French stock, as at a time when his own country afforded him every security for his property that human wisdom could devise, and when there was in France no government, no regard for property, and no seeurity for the enjoyment of it. What occasion, therefore, could there be for pro hibiting what was never likely to happen? The prohibition could not do any good; but it might be productive of very great injury to this country; for no doubt, it would make the French convention enact a law for preventing the natives of France from placing their money in our funds-a law which would be the more prejudicial to our interests, as, in the present state of affairs, the less security there was for property in France, the more the monied people there would feel themselves disposed to place their money in our funds. And therefore the prohibition which we were going to enact by this clause would necessarily operate against ourselves, and in favour of France, as the consequence |